|
|
|
|
|
|
by nothercastle
447 days ago
|
|
|
You missed the fact that the mix shifted. Coal and nuclear are too expensive where solar is available so you go from:
35% coal
30% nuclear
35% gas You go to
60% solar
40% gas. Obviously the numbers are made up but that’s the point I’m trying to make. |
|
|
If your example you've reduced generation from fossil fuels from 70% to 40% so still a win.
I assume you're still going on about nuclear. The problem with nuclear is that it doesn't make financial sense even if it can run at 100% of capacity for 100% of the time, it certainly can't cope with variable load - you can't scale nuclear to provide your peak amount, so you need to be able to top up with gas or battery, just like renewables need top up